1 2026:CGHC:26495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3221 of 2026 1 - Sunita Jain W/o Mohanlal Jain Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No.11 Saraipali Tehsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Officer Public Work Department (Bha/ Sadak) Mahasamund District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ramkant Patel appears on behalf of Ms. Itu Bhattacharya, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 30/06/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.1/1/b/2, area 0.0304 hectare out of 0.283 hectare situated at Village Jhilmila Saraipali Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, C.G. has been utilized for construction of Jhilmila- AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.01 10:20:31 +0530 2 Jamhari-Sajapali Road. The respondent has started proceedings under आपसी सीहमति सी भूमिम क्रय नीति 2016. The petitioner submitted a objection to the same vide (Annexure P/1) praying that her land be acquired under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, however the respondents are not taking any decision in the in the said objection raised by the petitioner, as the petitioner is not ready and willing to give consent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not willing to give consent to the purchase offer given by the respondent under the mutual consent scheme 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under this scheme the petitioner will be deprived from the interest on the acquired compensation as per Section 18 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act, 2013’), hence he is not at all interested to give the land in question under the Scheme 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, as the petitioner has objected and refused to give consent under the Scheme 2016 vide (Annexure P/1), the same will be considered by the competent authority i.e. the Collector/ respondent no. 2 within a period of 30 days and the same shall be decided and proper steps shall be taken for acquisition of the land in question in accordance with law. 3 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the objection raised by the petitioner (Annexure P/1). 5. From the pleadings of the petition, it appears that the petitioner has raised objection (Annexure P/1) before the competent authority praying for acquiring of his land under the Act 2013, instead of mutual consent scheme 2016. The petitioner has objected the same and refused to sell the land in question under the Scheme 2016 on the ground that if unsatisfied with the compensation, there is no provision of appeal. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already submitted an objection (Annexure P/1) letter to the Collector, the Collector/Respondent No.2 shall decide the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law and it is directed that the Collector shall take appropriate steps for acquisition of the land in question in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash